Bullying behavior: what is the potential for violence at your school?

Journal of Instructional Psychology, June, 2003 by Clete Bulach, Julie Penland Fulbright, Ronnie Williams

* when I am in a tough situation, I think positively; and

* I get embarrassed easily.

Results

A Cronbach alpha was used to determine the reliability of the instrument. Factors one through five had correlation coefficients as follows: factor one = .82, factor two = .82, factor three = .75, factor 4 = .72, and factor five = .68. The overall measure of internal consistency and reliability yielded a correlation coefficient of .85.

Mean scores for each of the factors and the relationship of the factors to each other were also determined. Mean scores for each factor ranged from a low of 1.55 for factor two (type and reason for bullying) to a high of 3.09 for factor one (where bullying occurs). A score of 3.0 indicates that sometimes this behavior happened, while a score of 1.55 indicates that the behavior occurred a little. Correlational data ranged from a high of .40** between factors one and two and a low of .09 between factors two and four. Seven of the ten comparisons were significant at the .02 level (see Table 1).

The correlation between factor one "where bullying occurs" and factor two "the type and reason for bullying" at .40 was the strongest. Apparently, those who have a higher frequency of being picked on, are also more likely to see others being picked on. The correlation between factor one and three "the way students are treated" had a correlation of-.03. It would appear that there is no relationship between seeing bullying behavior and seeing caring and respectful behavior. The correlation between factor one and four "how bullying behavior is reported" is also weak with a .23 correlation. This weak correlation is caused by students who report that they are less likely to report bullying behavior even though they might see it or be victims of it. The correlation between factor one and factor five "feelings of self-efficacy" (.11) is even lower. This could be caused by feelings of anxiety that are generated by being a witness to bullying behavior and being unable to do anything to stop it.

The correlation between factor two and factor three was .237. This low correlation was not expected. For example a student who has a high score (negative) on type of bullying could be the object of bullying behavior. This same student should have a high negative score on the fair and caring treatment of students. We expected the correlation to be more positive than indicated by our study. Nevertheless, while it is not very strong, it is positive and significant. The correlation between factor two and factor four was '.088. This is very disconcerting, but what it seems to say is that a number of students who are bullied, do not report it. Factor two measures whether bullying is reported. If a student is bullied and it is reported, the student would have a high score on factor two and a low score on factor four. This would have caused a negative correlation. Since the correlation is almost nonexistent, it means that a number of students who are bullied do not report it. The correlation between factor two and factor five is .34. It would have been expected that students who are bullied would have had a low sense of self-efficacy, and this tends to be the case. Students with high scores on bullying (negative) tended to have higher negative scores on self-efficacy.